Michael wrote: If any part of the story, though not true at the present, could in the future become a possibility, then perhaps, that possibility should be scrutinized as well as the present facts.

I assume you are referring to the Sci-Fi story, Michael. There are unlimited possibilities with any scientific finding: Did you ever think that we would be able to transplalnt a heart? What about reattaching a severed finger? Or wiping out (essentially in the US) devastating illnesses like polio or smallpox?? And, as with any scientific finding, there are possibilities that can turn sour - even lethal to the human race.

I think this forum's purpose is to provide information and support for one another. That information may incllude harmful possibilities. But we should try to not provide one-sided stories without balancing them with the opposing facts.

I have written some very one-sided editorials for various media uses. I can show some of them to you if you like. Usually an editor wants an opinion; but I prefer to present questions and facts that make people at least consider or listen to a concept not in compliance with one's own thinking.

We are treading new waters. Some of the "potential" problems are mindboggling (as Michael's fictional story points out). I am going to post one of my "questioning" OpEd's. I am NOT directing it at anyone's comments or opinion - it's just to make us think. As my mom always said, "There are two sides to every story." Thanks for listening to mine.
Peg


ATTENTION: FYI Please note that this editorial was written and published just prior to President Bush's veto on last year's Stem Cell Research bill (HR810). The identical bill was passed by the House this year and awaits a Senate vote. The legislation, S-3 "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007" will likely be voted on in March. The vote is extremely close iin the Senate to make the bill veto-proof.

OpEd The Shape of Things to Come
By Peggy Willocks
August, 2005
TN Coordinator – Parkinson’s Action Network

Take a circular Petri dish, bring together egg and sperm cells, and the miraculous process of creating an embryo begins. But bring together a circle of acquaintances, ask for opinions on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), and we will surely polarize into a multi-sided shape. Rather than be close-minded, we should listen to those teaching, then weigh all sides.

We listen to the media, adding their sensationalism, and reporting a plethora of political motives and opinions from extremists on both sides of the spectrum. We listen to the scientists, teaching that early studies indicate ESCR has the best potential success. Science claims hope for improved treatments and possible cures for millions from diseases like Parkinson’s, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and spinal cord injuries. And we listen to the pro-life conservatives, teaching their religious angle on this issue. And we listen to the politicians, some of whom don’t always have the interest of mankind at heart. But first, we must get the question right. Simply stated, the question is - Can we support research using science-created excess embryos and preserve the sanctity of human life?

A House passed bill (HR810) requests a relaxing of President’s Bush’s 2001 research moratorium on existing stem cell lines. Bush, who promises his first veto for the House passed bill, remains adamant in his decision. But in a surprise move during the President’s Council on Bioethics report, (former) Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), a heart transplant surgeon, denounced support of President Bush’s stand. And now the debate is on with a possible Senate vote in September.

Since the early 90’s, U.S. doctors at in vitro clinics have been creating and implanting embryos through a process known as in vitro fertilization (IVF), into the wombs of infertile women. But not every fertilized egg is viable; i.e. only the healthiest are “culled.” And not every implantation becomes a viable pregnancy; therefore, more eggs are fertilized than needed, with some trashed and excessive embryos stored frozen.

Some 400,000 unused frozen embryos are presently stored in fertility clinics throughout the U.S., destined to be discarded as medical waste, yet forbidden under present legislation to be used for stem cell research. The “Snowflake” program, organized by a Christian group, provides the option of donating embryos to recipient couples unable to produce their own. This program would not be precluded by HR810. Some Christian conservatives and pro-life supporters strongly believe these excess embryos are “life,” equating their use for research, in which the embryos must be destroyed, to “killing innocent lives.”

There are questions needing answers: Why is it allowable for “life” to be created, knowing that during the IVF process not all embryos will even survive the thaw, and the unhealthy will be culled, or “killed?” If several embryos are implanted – what becomes of those that don’t take? Some methods of birth control (such as IUD’s and certain birth control pills) “work” by causing an attached embryo to be “aborted.” Why is this not considered as killing a human? As ludicrous as it all of this seems, these are inconsistencies to be considered.

Concerning the science of ESCR, how far ethically can we proceed? Will there be clearly defined guidelines preventing embryos past a few days old from becoming “research” material? Will implantation of an embryo in order to “make a baby” via reproductive cloning be outlawed? Will legalization contribute to black-marketing embryos, organs, or body parts? If we don’t support this science, will we fall behind and lose our best scientists and doctors to other countries?

Finally, the ethics of such a science lead us to a closer examination of our own value system, and whether or not one’s religious beliefs should have precedence over another. Are we “playing God” with this science? Will ESC research lead us into never before tested situational ethics, such as genetic ownership or liability? Could we paint ourselves into a fatal corner in an attempt to create immortal bodies, only to eliminate the human race due a genetic vulnerability?

There are choices to be made, choices that could further polarize an already philosophically divided society. But there are also lives to be saved and scientific advancements to be made. President Bush calls this choice a “matter of conscious.” (former) Senator Frist (R-TN), calls it a “matter of science.” Conservatives call it a “matter of life,” while others call it a “matter of politics.” Or is it a “matter of moral, scientific, and political semantic inconsistencies.” The shape of things to come depends on “who’s teaching,” and “who’s listening.”

Here is a poem I wote, Bill. It petty much sums up how I feel about my ability to handle such major life issues. I appreciate your comments too, Bill. I don't get vigorous about anything these days. In fact, I don't think I have a vigorous bone left in my body after 17 1/2 years of Pd. lol

I am a friend...not an enemy.

http://www.braincrumbs.org/wereyouthere.html
michael b.

You must have been a school teacher in your former life...Great job...very well done, but not over cooked.

michael b.

Your poem was very beautiful and eloquent. Thank you michael!
Steph

Very nice interpolation of God's admonition to Job. (Job: 38-39)

It isn't difficult to make poetry from poetry. I think I used the Revise Standard version which I got from http://www.crosswalk.com

Here is chapter 38

The Revised Standard Version

One thing you can not fight is that which is unprovable. It is always much louder than the bare facts of any discussion.

How unfortunate that there is misunderstanding. I think my comment was very light and of few words. I had spent a considerable amount of time on this thread and your comment sounded like it was a waste of time (to me)

Yes, words are important, so is tone. If I were to start this post with "What are you talking about"? It would have a more aggressive tone.

End of subject for me, toodles

paula

Originallly posted by Paula W

Sheryl, I guess you and most everyone else will have to be disappointed that you didn't learn anything - not sure how to respond to that burst of positive feedback..lol

Followed up with

How unfortunate that there is misunderstanding. I think my comment was very light and of few words. I had spent a considerable amount of time on this thread and your comment sounded like it was a waste of time (to me)... End of subject for me, toodles

"How unfortunate" is not an apology, but then you don't really believe you were wrong, do you? If you truly misunderstood what I said, a more appropriate answer would be "i'm sorry." Your comment was sarcasic NOT light, no matter how few words you used in delivering it.

I obviously missed something... how is it that you spent so much more time on this thread than anyone else who's made many thoughtful posts? And even if you did, why does that entitle you to publicly attack me?

Poor communication is at the heart of so many tough issues facing the world today, including the one at hand... ESCR. Let's agree to be part of the solution, NOT the problem.

Sheryl

Hello

asking that the tone here should remain polite and respectful please and that the conversation not become personal in a negative way

If members wish to discuss things that are personal, PM is the best way so that the topic stays on track

thanks
Cheri
(still cool )